Why India has never appointed a ‘distinguished jurist’ to SC, Justice Bhuyan asks

The HinduIndependentProgressive7 hr. ago

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan called for the activation of Article 124(3) to appoint 'distinguished jurists' from legal academia to the Supreme Court, highlighting the 76-year delay in utilizing this constitutional provision. He emphasized the importance of tolerance for differing viewpoints in a democracy, referencing recent protests by law students against Chief Justice of India's remarks. The Bar Council of India had initially barred new law graduates from being enrolled for protesting against the CJI's attendance at their convocation, but later retracted the decision under public pressure. Justice Bhuyan argued that legal academics possess the necessary qualities to contribute meaningfully to the judiciary and criticized the notion that they lack practical experience.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the discussion around the need for judicial diversity and the value of academic contributions to the judiciary, aligning with progressive views on expanding representation. Justice Bhuyan criticizes the reluctance to utilize legal academics in judicial appointments, suggesting a '

Hindustan TimesIndependentProgressive9 hr. ago

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan raised concerns about the underutilization of Article 124(3) of the Indian Constitution, which allows for the appointment of 'distinguished jurists' to the Supreme Court. He questioned why no legal academics have been appointed to the bench despite the constitutional provision remaining unused for over 76 years. Bhuyan suggested possible reasons include insufficient exploration by the executive and the collegium, or a perceived lack of depth in Indian legal academia. He highlighted historical support for expanding the pool of candidates to include academics and cited examples from countries like the US, UK, and Kenya where legal scholars have served on constitutional courts. Bhuyan emphasized the importance of incorporating diverse perspectives into the judiciary to enhance its role as a moral and constitutional guardian.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the underutilization of the constitutional provision as a systemic failure rather than a neutral observation. It emphasizes the need for greater diversity and academic input in the judiciary, aligning with progressive values. The critique of the current system suggests a leftward傾